The present study results from the author's participation, from 1977 on, in the University of California at Berkeley's archaeological sculpture project at the important Piedmont ruin of Abaj Takalik in the department of Retalhuleu, Guatemala. The project's identification of Olmec and Maya sculptural components at Abaj Takalik reopened the question of relationships between Olmec and Maya styles. The discovery during the 1978-79 field season of Abaj Takalik Stela 50, a sculpture combining Olmec sculptural features with a Maya style dot-bar Initial Series, directed interest to other sculpture with Maya characteristics in and around the traditional Gulf Coast "Olmec Heartland" in the states of Veracruz and Tabasco, Mexico. Two such sculptures, the Tuxtla Statuette and Tres Zapotes Stela C, combine Olmec features with Maya Style dot-bar Initial Series dates. This situation suggested questions of Olmec and Maya sculptural relationships raised by discoveries at Abaj Takalik might yield to comparative studies of Abaj Takalik and Tres Zapotes.

Unfortunately, the published record of Tres Zapotes Stela C was entirely inadequate for such a comparative study. Therefore, I made a brief visit to Tres Zapotes during summer 1984 to better record the fragment of Tres Zapotes Stela C which resides there. At that time a number of previously unknown sculptures were noted, as were striking inaccuracies in the published records of long known sculptures. It became necessary to defer detailed comparative studies until the sculpture of Tres Zapotes could be properly recorded and cataloged. Further visits were made during the winters of 1985, 1986, the summer 1987, and the fall of 1988 to accurately record both previously known sculptures and recently discovered sculptures.

Although this catalog began as an effort to identify distinct formal groupings and provide a critical catalog of Tres Zapotes sculpture, a surprising number of important studies have developed from this work. Some of these studies treat the ongoing redefinition of the Olmec and their relationships with other early Mesoamerican groups (Porter 1984, 1987). Other studies focus on the origins and relationships of early Mesoamerican writing systems (Porter 1992, 1993, 1994,a). Others focus on reconstructing the archaeological record (Porter 1985, 1986).

Perhaps the most important studies emerging from this catalog began with problems in Olmec Sculptural form, which lead me through Olmec sculptural process and ended in a revision of Olmec culture historical models (Porter 1989,a, 1990). This initial study has inspired a deeper understanding of Olmec sculptural role and use and has created a foundation which other scholars have already begun to build upon (de la Fuente 1989, Cyphers Guillén 1994 and Cyphers Guillén and Botas 1994).

Although studies derived from the research or the material which resulted in this catalog are significant, the most important result of this study is the catalog itself. This is the most complete and thorough catalog of the sculpture of any Olmec site. This is also the first catalog of any Olmec site which shows all four primary views of every sculpture in the round as well as providing rubbings and crisp clear drawings of all relief sculpture.

The sculptures recorded in this catalog also illustrate a portion of the fascinating variety of sculptural types found in the broader Mexican Gulf Coast region. These types range from simple boulder sculptures through fully developed Olmec sculptures and include Early Maya style sculptures. Together, these sculptures can be sequenced to illustrate the entire range of Olmec sculpture from its beginnings as crude boulder sculpture until the carving of Olmec sculpture ceases, only to be replaced by sculpture in pure Maya styles. This sculptural succession paralells the sculpture sequence found at Abaj Takalik in the Guatemalan Piedmont although the Olmec sequence at Tres Zapotes continues a full 500 years longer than the Olmec sequence at Tres Zapotes.

The 500 year period between the fall of the southern Olmec at sites such as Abaj Takalik represents both the great period of Olmec sculpture in the Gulf Coast region and the beginnings of Olmec expansion into Central Mexican sites such as Chalcatzingo and Teopanicuanitlan. The end of this period of flourescence and expansion is marked, again as at Abaj Takalik, by the apperance of "combinant" sculptures exhibiting features of both Olmec and Maya style. Following these combinant sculptures, only Maya style sculpture appears in the Gulf Coast region at site such as La Mojarra, El Alemain and Cerro de Las Mesas.

Despite the demise of Olmec sculpture traditions in the Gulf Coast region, there is tantalizing evidence to suggest that the style may have continued to evolve still further north in the Mexican state of Veracruz. Indeed, John Scott has perceptively suggested that the sculptures of Los Idolos near Misantla may be both a survival of Olmec sculptural style and an antecedent to Aztec sculptural style (Scott 1982:21-22).

Thanks are due to the following individuals and organizations for their assistance in the completion of this study: Professors Beatriz de la Fuente, Alan Dundes, David Grove, Leanne Hinton and John Rowe; Ing. Joaquin Garcia-Barcena, Director de Monumentos Prehispanicos del INAH; Roberto A. Estefan Karam, Coordinador de Asuntos Juridicos del INAH; Fernando Bustamante, Director de Museo Regional de Santiago Tuxtla, Veracruz; Suzanne Sundholm Administrative Assistant of the U.C.A.R.F.; Rebecca Gonzalez L. Directora del Projecto Arqueologico La Venta of INAH; The Archaeological Research Facility of the University of California; The Center for Latin American Studies at Berkeley; The Department of Anthropology at Berkeley.

I would like to emphasize the crucial financial assistance of my Mother, Mary E. Porter and of my late grandparents Grace J. Edwards and Earl W. Porter. I would also like to thank Robert Barkaloff, the late Lawrence Benson, Christian Bloom, Carol Inglis, Justine Staneko and Harold Young for their help assistance and encouragement in the preparation of this study. Naturally, any shortcomings in my exploration of the monuments and hieroglyphs of Tres Zapotes are entirely my own fault.

METHOD AND TERMINOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

PREVIOUS WORK AT TRES ZAPOTES

SCULPTURE GROUPS

DISCUSSION

TABLES

MAPS

Map 2: Boulder Sculpture

Map 3: Potbelly Sculpture

Map 4: Early Olmec Sculpture

Map 5: Middle Olmec Sculpture

Map 6: Late Olmec Sculpture?

Map 7: Tres Zapotes Region.

Map 8: Tres Zapotes.